tv [untitled] March 18, 2014 8:00am-8:31am PDT
moment to acknowledge and thank jim smith and nono for their wonderful work at sfgovtv and helping broadcast it meeting. are there any announcements? >> no announcements. >> could you call 2 of 4, the consent calendar. >> items 2 and 4, these items are routine and any of the consent calendar items may be removed ask considered separately. >> would anyone like to sever any of these items? okay. seeing none. is there a member of the public that would be interested in severing these items. okay, seeing none. we call item number 5. >> can we get a motion for the consent calendar. >> get a motion to approve the consent calendar, second by tang and motion made by chew. this motion passes, can you call
item number pa. >> state and federal legislative update. this is an action item. >> great, my favorite update, how are you? >> fine, thank you very much. >> we need to buckle down because we have a lot of work to do right now. >> we do. >> a lot of the work has been done, so i'll make it as easy as possible. >> february 27th was the final date for introduction of bills and there was something over 1,000 bills so we sifted through them but beyond that, we have six we want to recommend for your consideration to support. support if amended and we have four that we want to oppose as they are written presently. so if you -- i can walk through the bills that we're recommending. >> sure. >> on page 6 of the matrix, ab 1532 by mr. gato, continues his
efforts to address safety of bicycle, pedestrian by making it a crime if you -- if a person -- if a vehicle strikes a pedestrian or bicyclist even if there's no harm, if they don't stop, it's a gap in the law if the person is not harmed you still need to stop under this new law and we're recommending the support position on that to continue the bikable, walkable community of efforts that you're engaged in. the next bill is on page 11, ab 2250 by tom daily from orange county. it was intended to be a spot bill but evidently they drafted a little too carefully and it actually was being referred to committee. it deals with the issue that has risen in southern california but has the mop concerns about the toll back hot lanes or toll back transportation
facilities. the administration signaled they want to have more of a share of any toll revenue generated by a local entity. and this bill would be -- is intended to push back on that and present it doesn't do very much. it says the majority of the revenues from tolls need to be spent by the locality and not given to the state. >> how does this effect san francisco? >> express lanes you may be partners with. it wouldn't affect the golden gate bridge or the state, but it would affect express lanes. we're recommending support and i've had deep conversations with the author and his staff and they're going to make amendments that are even -- that are stronger and more in line with what state transportation agencies really want in the long run. ab 2398
by mr. lavene is on page 11 and this is similar to the first bill. it increases the crime for when with you hit a bicyclist or pedestrian with a vehicle and cause great bodily harm, so it's another effort to improve safety for bicyclist and pedestrian. >> is this kind of a like a companion piece of the first? >> it is. they're introduced but they're different enough that they're pel legal -- owe parallel on what they're doing. >> what's the violation? >> let me pull it up.
>> these are miss demeanors and up to 1,000 and a violation point. >> who is the issuing agency? >> the city or county demeanors and up to 1,000 and a violation point. >> who is the issuing agency? >> the city or county police or sheriff's department. >> i'll get to another bill that's in the same vein. the senator canella introduced sb 11 which is on page 22 and it has different zones for traffic violations near schools that are marked as school zones. so is it's taking a double fine that we've seen used here and other places for highly unsafe segments and applying it to
school zones. and sb 1143 on page 24 is the long sought change to transit procurement for construction. on the books currently it's build authority for transit projects but for the last decade, it has been extended each legislative session for several years. the transit association is sponsoring this measure to eliminate the sunset data and make this into an ongoing available procurement process. >> which bill is this? >> this is sb 1143 on page 24. >> i apologize if i went over that. those would constitute the five bills we're recommending support in this matrix. in addition, if we're suggesting support of amended to sb 1122 by senator
pavally, the bill has drafted -- establishes a process for funds in the budget to be appropriated to the growth council and the funds being the captain trade revenues. in of itself, that's supportable because what we like to do is ask for amendments and collaborate with mpc and other partners in the regions to ask the funds made available from cap and trade for eligible programs that would affect transportation agencies in the bay area including san francisco that the funds come to the mpo rather than be retained at the state level. >> what's the mpo? >> metropolitan organization. that's mtc. >> sorry, that's my acronym handicap that i have. the idea would be -- we look at the bill or we're looking at the bill as a
framework to insure the budget act provides the strategic fund council which we support and recommends support but we want it to be amended to it assures the majority of the funds come to the region in the state so the decisions can be made at the regional level rather than at the state level in terms of what projects gets fund. four bills that were recommending an oppose, ab 4271 by frazier deals with contract change orders. this recommendation came from the staff and i think it makes a lot of sense. it's really micro managing how construction contract and how the change order should work. it goes through a lot of detail that's unnecessary so we're recommending opposed at this point. that was on page 12.
the ab 2650 is a bill that would stop the high speed rail bonds from being sold any furthest bonds being sold in any allocated or unallocated bonds would help payoff the bonds that exist and that's on page 18, ab 2650. i'm going to jump over one and come back to the second because this bill sb 990 is a similar bill to what i just described on page 19 and that will hike for rail bonds. i would like to go back to sb 969. last year he -- >> what page? >> page 20. >> last year he succeeded and passing a measure in the wake of some of the hearings he held on the
bay bridge that established in bay law mandated projects in access of billion dollars that he called mega projects that's at the state level for state level like the bay bridge and they would have to go through a process described in the bill. that's in state law because of his actions last year. he's saying any project, transportation project that cost in access of one billion dollars whether it's sponsored by the state or regional entity or by san francisco ta for example would have to undergo a pier review process. it does not impose the state pier review panel on a regional entity but it requires a regional entity to have its on process. >> what does the pier review process look like? is it one additional meeting or five?
>> it's an ongoing collaboration with peers with a report -- it's pretty cumbersome. >> it may be something that agencies want to go on their own but regional authorities have had problems delivering projects so to my project the singular issue is the bay issue and cal trans, not transportation and the delivery of their projects. >> what is the -- what was the reception for this bill? was it well received, was it a lot of discussion? >> in fact, his original bill last year started off with the state pier review panel and a requirement for regions and we at the negotiated with him to take the regional and local agency portion of that bill out and he's come back. so everybody, i think i would say each transportation agency across the state that have
sizeable potential mega projects are being required to do this. so you have a lot of companions. >> okay. is there anything else? >> a couple of quick things. captain trade and carbon tax. different animals, but there may soon be coming close together. senator steinberg as you read the press introduced a measure to impose a carbon tax in lieu of cap and trade for the cap and trade regime that's going to be subjected to the fuel distribution in 2015. he's been a sceptic and that's going to be volatile. it matched up to fund a general fund project for earned income tax credit.
by imposing the carbon tax -- the way he explained it to us that he would reduce the volume tilt and raise fund and that would help low and middle income families to -- he's run into difficulties already. the bill has been introduced for a week and a half. the environmental community is strongly opposed to a carbon tax in the state particularly since we have cap and trade. he's entering into this discussions with a couple more groups of individuals including myself to see if we can divide a different way of doing cap and trade by statute and allocate more resources to transit and transportation projects what looks like my come through the governor's proposal. that's unfolding development
and it will be under way for three weeks for those who are working with him and i'll be staying in touch and reaching out to staff to make sure whatever we end up putting together with senator steinberg is consistent with san francisco's needs. so i think that wraps up my report. >> okay. thank you for your report. we'll take public comment. seeing there's no questions from the colleague, we'll take public comment on this item. seeing no public comment. it item is closed. is there a motion? motion made by supervise tang and seconded by supervise chiu. madam clerk is this an action item? >> yes. let's take a vote on this item then, please. item number 5. >> commissioner chiu. aye. >> commissioner cohen. >> aye. >> farrell. >> aye. >> tang. >> aye.
>> wiener. >> wiener absent. >> item passes. >> thank you very much. >> could you please call item number 6. recommend amending the adopted fiscal year 2013/14 budget to increase revenues by $2,907,954, decrease expenditures by $110,932,870, decreasing other financing sources by $290, 324,510 for a total net decrease in fund balance of $176,483,686, and amending the prop k stategic.6. recommend amending the adopted fiscal year 2013/14 budget to increase revenues by $2,907,954, decrease expenditures by $110,932,870, decreasing other financing sources by $290, 324,510 for a total net decrease in fund balance of $176,483,686, and amending the 6. recommend amending the adopted fiscal year 2013/14 budget to increase revenues by $2,907,954, decrease expenditures by $110,932,870, decreasing other financing sources by $290, 324,510 for a total net decrease in fund balance of $176,483,686, and amending the prop k stategic. this is an action item. >> let's hear about the decreases and expenditures. >> thank you directors. what i have before you is a routine finance committee item. this is our annual budget adjustments. these are the items that we're taking into inventory or taking into stocks of items approved in this finance
exity -- committee or any other changes. subsequent to the preparation of the fiscal year 2014 budget act. we approved last may. we have a total of $2.9 million in changes in revenues. $111 million in a decrease in expenditures and $290 million in a decrease in other finances forces. this item -- these items have three tables within the packet on page 49, page 52 and page 53. if you'd like to follow along, i'll walk you through the different changes of increases and decreases we have to the budget. on page 29, we have $2.9 million of net revenues we'd like to increase in our budget from
9.8 to $9.7 million. we're asking for a decrease. the majority of our funds are sitting with the treasury pool. and we're anticipating an interest rate, but we're looking at an average rate of 78. we have increased for the car sharing electrified project. we have had this in our previous years budget but due to different circumstances that delay the purchase of electric vehicles we were anticipating the revenues being earned in this year verses last year's budget. we have reliability grant we received. due to limited staff and shifting them, we'll work less on this project but pushing it out
to next year to be worked on. what we have next is the federal highway bridge program for the island interchange improvement. we have federal and regional revenues here. i know you're familiar with this program. we have been working on the construction project on the interchange improvement. the project was awarded a contract back in january and there was a delay in starting another project due to the nesting of the birds. it has shifted the process. all of these revenues will be earned if -- in the future. we were able to receive additional funs to complete the van ness rapid transit. we have approximately $5 million of revenues we plan to earn for the city of parkway project. this is
another item on previous year budgets but we were not able to recognize a revenue because the invoices without proper support and we aren't able to support them. we received a new contribution from the regionals ccat of $21,000 and we have been able to create an item of agreement with the ocii for the full off ramp. and they've asked us to be about come the lead agency to complete this project. we've received additional funds for the trip contract from mta as well and that's an additional $56,000. we have revenue from mta for $230,000. we have other federal revenues
and contributions that are just not large enough to highlight for $23,000 and we're receiving additional revenue for sub leasing our offices and sharing our bike racks with the department of environmental and they moved into the beginning with us. we have the title loan reimbursement. this was brought to the committee in january as well. this is the division where they've asked us to defer the payment into structure alone because they have not received the loan from the us navy. that's $2.9 million of revenue we like to increase into the budget. if you turn to page 52, we have approximately $111 million of expenditures we like to decrease. the pa joert of expenditures here listed are corresponding to the revenues i just mentioned so i'll go over the
items that haven't been addressed in the revenues. we're looking at for the prop k capital project cost, we're looking at $108 million decrease for this line item. this is related to a hand full of projects. radio replacement project from smta, the central subway, the transbay transit center, phase 1 project with tjta, and the mini vehicles facilities and guide ways. all of these projects are either in project delays or have found other fundings to support it and the result doesn't need to obtain funding from prop k at this time. in relation to that, we have tsca and we're decreasing expenditures for that project. that's related to one project. it's the city college bicycle route 770 70
montification project. that's related to the night street reconstruction from the macalister project on franklin street and count down signals. the city college pedestrian connecter. all of those projects have decreased our total capital cost by $111 million. we've also have a couple of new expenditures for projects. one is the bicycle sharing strategic analysis report. this is a project for $25,000 that was recently requested by chair avalos to investigate the structures of a bike -- regional bike sharing program. we also have received an approval from this -- from the pa committee and from this board an appropriation for the bus wrack transit and that's an appropriation back in july to allow staff
to complete the environmental phase. moving down to administrative operating cost. one item i'd like to note is the salary and benefit adjustment. this was approved by the board in may of 2013. that's what approval from the study that was recently produced. in the last -- one of the last items is expenditure is the equipment, furniture, and fixture and i asked the committee -- it implements a new accounting system. we're looking at a one time adjustment for this fiscal year